TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Order-in-Original dated 04.08.2009 to the first appellate authority and subsequent Order-in-Appeal dated 16.10.2009 wherein both the lower authorities have not reassessed the value of the declared items. In the absence of any such contest, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim as filed by the appellant is correct and does not require any interference - appeal dismissed. - APPEAL N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, the goods (i.e. used pentium III, B Grade motor including power cables) were confiscated with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and penalty was imposed; on the non-declared goods, the adjudicating authority assessed the bill of entry based upon Chartered Engineer s certificate, confiscated the goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of non-declared items, redemption fine and penalty of 10% and 5% was not to be considered. The adjudicating authority in the remand proceedings has confirmed the demands raised on the non-declared items by re-assessing the value and imposing penalty as well as redemption fine but has not re-assessed the value of declared items and has not followed the directions of the Tribunal. The said O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected the refund claim and allowed the refund claim only to the extent on the non declared items. The first appellate authority also upheld the said views of the adjudicating authority in the current impugned order. Appeal of the appellant which is directed against the impugned order in this appeal, is infructuous to the extent of non refund of the amount in respect of declared items inasmuch a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
